Unfair Conduct pre Honda – Extended Notice & Punitive Awards & Torts

Damages: Pre-Honda: Extended Notice, Punitive & Tort Claims

For cases which were decided after Honda, see the summary here.

 

Mulvihill v City of Ottawa 2008 ONCA para 49Court of Appeal set aside trial award of bad faith. Employer, acting in good faith, has the right to be wrong.Nil setting aside trial award
Mar-08Trial judge had found breach of Wallace obligation and allowed incremental 5.5 months notice

Mastrogiuseppe v. Bank of Nova ScotiaOCA reduced trial award of Wallace extension from 8 months to 4 months. Bank did not act in bad faith in arguing cause for termination based on dishonesty, even though unsuccessful.Reduction from 8 to 4 months$25,000
OCA October 2007Punitive damages of $25,000 was upheld. The Bank’s conduct was oppressive and high-handed in blacklisting the respondent’s relatives and in unlawfully and improperly deducting funds from the respondent’s account with another bank in respect of her outstanding loans from the appellant.

Pitt, J. trial decision 2005$25,000 is the minimum amount capable of deterring and denouncing the appellant’s conduct.

Amaral (Litigation guardian of) v. Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency LtdTort claim was not proven.($150,000) intentional infliction;
OSC July 2007The plaintiff employee had suffered severe depression after being dismissed. She was suicidal, engaged in self-mutilation and would likely not return to work.Family Law claims set for spouse and children of $100,000 in total)
OCA upheld trial decision May 2009Provisional damage award was provided

Shulz v Attorney-General and upheld on appeal although no issue of liability on appealNegligent infliction of mental suffering$125,000
BC CA 2006

Downham v County of Lennox and Addington,Biased, shoddy investigation;$50,000 plus tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering of $20,000 and 5 months incremental notice;$100,000
OSC Dec 2005Employer intended to cause not only mental distress but social and economic damage. Para 239Defamation $1,000
By generating a substantially false investigation report which was circulated to senior staff and politicians in a small community and by the grossly exaggerated content of the letter of dismissal, the County created a stigma which prevented plff from finding alternate employment.  The County must be responsible for this longer period of unemployment and not just the period of notice justified by the Bardal factors.

Zadorozniak v. Community FuturesPlff was publicly humiliated, before the Board, the staff, and the town of Merritt. Board members entered his office, lunged at him to unplug his computer, pinned him to the wall and called the police upon his pushing back. Increased notice period to 1 year from 6 months.
BCSC“it is also reasonable to infer an effect on his ability to obtain other employment, given the importance of his job in such a small town and the public nature of the dismissal.  Indeed, Mr. Zadorozniak has left no stone unturned in seeking other employment and has been unsuccessful.”
Jan-05Plff was general manager of the defendant, 49 years of age, with 14 months service. Wallace factors allowed notice set at 1 year.

Zorn-Smith v Bank of Montreal Plff was burned out, required medical leave. Despite knowledge of this, the defendant transferred two of the three financial services managers to other branches. Two new person were brought in, only one of which was experienced. Bank took advantage of plff’s willingness to work hard, even to her personal disadvantage.$15,000 intentional infliction of emotional suffering;
OSCCallous disregard for her health. Further burn out was inevitable, which led to adjustment disorder and depression and anxiety;Wallace gross allowed but increment not specified; awarded 16 months
Dec-03
Re Wallace issue, plff was employed 21 years, most recently as full service manager.

Youkhanna v. Spina's Steel WorkersWelder employed for brief time period of 3 months; termination was due to his application for workers compensation benefits. Normal notice period of 2 months increased to 3.Wallace gross up of 1 month
OSC
Nov-11

Prinzo v. Baycrest CentreOCA found punitive damages served no rational purpose in view of the tort award of $15,000, plus trial judge gave no reasons for this award;$15,000 for the intentional infliction of emotional suffering$5,000 set aside on appeal
OCA July 2002Trial judge awarded 18 months to 17 year managerial employee. There was no suggestion that this was a Wallace extension
Trial March 2000

Youkhanna v. Spinal’s Steel Workers CoDenial of short term disability benefits without adequate evidence;Notice period increased from 2 to 3 months
OSC 2001Aggravated and punitive damage claims were withdrawn at trial;

Strong v Kisbee EstateClaim of sexual assault due to rape set by Court of Appeal;$100,000 damages not defined as aggravated
OCA August 2000Trial judge had found a limitation issue and made no provisional assessment.

Wallace v United Grain GrowersOct-97
SCC

Deidal v Tod MountainEmployee terminated in the context of false allegations of dishonesty which would impact employment elsewhere due to other employers having misgivings about his or her character.$50,000 for the increased difficulty in finding new employment and $25,000 for mental distress, both recoverable as aggravated damages (Finch, J.A.)
B.C.S.C. 1995;The trial judge had allowed for a 15 month notice period of $60,000; damages for slander of $50,000; aggravated damages of $25,000; The award totaled $135,000.Braidwood, J.A. allowed for 27 months plus a further 6 months for total award of $135,000;
Upheld in B.C. Court of AppealAn alternative award was made of 33 months notice in the same amount.
1997The two decisions of the majority were each concurring reasons. The total trial award was upheld. There was no pleading made of defamation. Braidwood J.A.’s reasons came to the same total of $135,000, which is hard to decipher in the reasons.

Ribeiro v CIBCUnproven allegations of dishonesty; criminal charges laid;$10,000 $50,000
OCAMental distress award increased from $10,000 to $20,000;
Nov-92Punitive damages increased from $10,000 to $50,000;
This was then the high water mark for punitive damages.

Francis v CIBC 21 OR (3d) 75; Bank had made serious allegations of fraud against Trusty Francis and in so doing had failed to allow him the opportunity to answer these assertions, in addition to other failings;$40,000
OCA 1992The Court of Appeal doubled the punitive damage award to $40,000, this again being in 1992, and maintained the trial award of solicitor-client costs.

Rahemtulla v VanFed Credit UnionThe employee, a bank teller, was accused of theft and summarily dismissed.  The accusation was false, and she had no opportunity to respond to the accusation, nor was a proper investigation made.  McLachlin J (as she then was) found the employer’s conduct was made in “threatening circumstances of the utmost gravity”.  She found the conduct “equally reprehensible as that of a person posing as a military policeman and accusing another of corresponding with a German spy.”  $5,000 for the intentional infliction of mental suffering
BCSC 1984

Explore Other Posts in the Damages Chapter